User talk:IZAK/Archive 22

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

bible

Do you agree that English-speaking Jews never use the word "Bible" to refer to the Tanakh? Or never use the words "Hebrew Bible" when speaking English, especially when talking to non-Jews? If not, then we have a problem with Home Computer. By the way, Hag Sameach!! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Slurb man, back down the Holy War. You don't even talk to me on my own page and you're rallying troops.. Peace man. And by the way, it wouldn't hurt to read the conversation on the page to see what's really goin on.

Izak, I was getting on your talk page to try to diffuse what looked to be turning into an fight. You wrote specifically to Andrew but I believe the comment should have been directed at me as I was asking for a change of category. My proposal is simply that the old testament section did not need to exist (as it does not now). Christians have taken the TNK and through thier own judgment have changed the order and accepted it as truth. What I was proposing was for the section on Hebrew Bible (a term used by English speaking Christian and Jewish Scholars) be edited to reflect that, which it was.. problem solved. No one is trying to remove the section. Peace. Oh, and sorry for arguing Rubenstein on your talk page. --Home Computer 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Home Computer, you are arguing that what we call the Tanakh cannot also be called the Bible. This is the issue you have raised. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No i'm not, Dovi and others showed me I was wrong. --Home Computer 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To User:Slrubenstein: How on earth can anyone arrive at a definitive postulation of what all English-speaking Jews do or don't say or do? At any rate, let us just use some logic and reasoning based on the facts. The facts are that almost all non-Orthodox and secular (the majority) English-speaking Jews do not know much Hebrew, it's mostly the Orthodox masses who are Jewishly and Hebraicly literate in the English-speaking countries, the rest of the non-Orthodox masses (everywhere) do not know Hebrew and do not use Hebrew terms, and indeed have little formal education and interest in Judaism simply based on the rate that they are marrying gentiles and abandoning Judaism ("official" figures point to 50%-90% of non-Orthodox Jews marrying non-Jews.) So, therefore, it would be safe to assume and argue that most English-speaking Jews do use non-Jewish terminology, mostly out of ignorance and wishing to use "standard" terminology. Thus the word "Bible" alone will be used by most English speaking Jews referring to what is otherwise known as the Tanakh (by Israelis and the Orthodox English speakers) and similarly the phrase "Hebrew Bible" will be used by more learned, but not necessarily Judaicly knowledgeable, academics, scholars, and writers. However, the names Torah and Tanakh alone are clearly-defined and used universally by almost all Hebrew-speaking Jews (this would include even all the non-religious Jews of Israel) as well as all all Orthodox Jews (everywhere), and also by some learned Reform and Conservative ones probably, (and again, figures and proportions of how Reform and Conservative Jews use Hebrew terms vs. English terms would be hard to know.) IZAK 10:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right to ask, "How on earth can anyone arrive at a definitive postulation of what all English-speaking Jews do or don't say or do?" so I wonder how you can then say that Torah and Tanakh alone are used by all Hebrew speaking Jews. Even if we limit it to all Hebrew-Speaking Orthodox Jews, are you sure that "all" of them never use the word "Bible" to refer to "Tanakh? Even when speaking or writing in English? What about when they are speaking to or writing for non-Jews? I do not question that in Hebrew they use Tanakh. I do not question that many also use Tanakh even when speaking in English. This seems to me to be a far cry from saying that all of them never use the word "Bible" in any context. Didn't Philo use the Greek word "Biblia?" Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Slr: If they are Hebrew-speaking then the word "Bible" is mostly unknown to them. Who in Israel, while speaking Hebrew uses the word "Bible"? Essentially no-one. As you say only if talking to non-Jews or non-Hebrew speaking Jews. And most Orthodox English speakers almost never use the word "Bible" because it sounds too "goyish", yet, nevertheless, I agree that when a Hebrew-speaker will switch to English then the word "Bible" will definitely crop up more frequently in the discussion. As for Philo, he is long gone and buried and in any case he spoke and wrote in Greek, and yes it is from the old Greek that the word Bible is derived, but so what, he has no relevance to today's Judaism (or is there a Philo revival on the go that I don't know about?, anything is possible.) But what are you really driving at? I seem to be basically agreeing with your points here so I am not sure what you are really after (beyond crticizing some semantical allusions that I obviously do not mean the way you describe them to be - what do you want?) IZAK 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, surely you know that moany Orthodox Jews, and many Israelis (Orthodox and non-Orthodox) speak not only Hebrew but other languages as well, be it English, French, and so on. If you think I am asking "Who in Israel, while speaking Hebrew uses the word "Bible"?" you are entirely mistaken. Please read what I wrote. I will copy from the above: "Even when speaking or writing in English? What about when they are speaking to or writing for non-Jews?" If this seems ambiguous to you let me clear up any ambiguity: I am talking about Jews who are speaking or writing in English. I am certain that many Israelis and Orthodox jews, even those who primarily speak Hebrew, also know and speak in other languages, especially if they are talking to non-Jews. Your statement, "nevertheless, I agree that when a Hebrew-speaker will switch to English then the word "Bible" will definitely crop up more frequently in the discussion." is all I am talking about. By the way, is Joseph Telushkin Orthodox? Listen, IZAK, you want to know what I really am driving at? first of all, I am NOT driving at an argument with you. I agree with you that we basically agree on the main points at hand, and if I write anything more that seems to ask for clarification I assure you it is not because I am disagreeing with you or trying to pick a fight with you. My argument is not at all with you but with Home Computer. Specifically, he seems to think that Christians "own" the word Bible, and that "the Bible" refers almost if not all the time to the Christian Bible. I don't mind you saying that you prefer Tanakh or even claiming that most Orthodox Jews or Hebrew-speakers prefer Tanakh. I do mind when someone says that it is false or illegitimate to claim that "the Bible" can be used by Jews to refer to their Bible (i.e. the Tanakh). Home Computer seems to want to delete anything that suggests this from the Bible article. What I am "really" driving at is that he shouldn't do that. I feel encouraged and supported in my argument against Home Computer when you state that "nevertheless, I agree that when a Hebrew-speaker will switch to English then the word "Bible" will definitely crop up more frequently in the discussion." I want him to know that I am not the only one who thinks this. I hope I am being clearer now. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Slr: I agree with you then, based on how you have clarified things. It is true and valid to say that Jews will, do, and have used the word "Bible" in their own circles, no doubt about it. This seems pretty obvious methinks. IZAK 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Whew, I am glad I was clearer! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IZAk, I think the lost point of this entire conversation was that I also agree. What I disagreed with was Slrubentein saying that I am pushing for the Jewish perspective to be removed from the Bible article when that is not my intention at all. --Home Computer 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer: I am reading your words carefuly. Slrubenstein's point was not that you are "pushing for the Jewish perspective to be removed from the Bible article" which he did not say. What Slrubenstein is saying is that you are pushing to remove "the Jewish perspective" from the NAME or WORDS "Bible" or "The Bible" - when Jews (especially English speaking and non-Hebrew-speaking Jews) do indeed use the words or name "Bible" or "The Bible" as referring to the Torah and Tanakh (which Christians call the "Old Testament") and they (the Jews) will imply by their use of "Bible" and "The Bible" that the Christian "New Testament" should not be included in the terms "Bible" or "The Bible." Of course, when speaking of Judaism as a religion and for Jews who know Hebrew well, then Torah, Tanakh and Hebrew Bible are preferable at all times (and there would therefore not be a need to rely on non-Jewish words such as "Bible" and others.) IZAK 08:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Still it seems to me that even though many English and European jews may have adopted the term "Hebrew Bible" that Hebrew will always be the main language in Judaism concerning holy texts even in foriegn English speaking countries.. the greek term Biblia is the typical word for Christians and "The Bible" is always the proper title for the entirety of Christian texts for the purpose of this discussion. That is why I am making the point that in the article to equate usages of the Jewish and Christian meanings of the term "The Bible" may not be factual or encylcopediclly useful. Even the term "The Hebrew Bible" has differing meanings.. to scholars it's the common ground term refering to both the TNK and the OT. But to these people on wiki, it is an exclusive term.. Still, I think through patience and kindness we can come to some good concensus. :) Peace --Home Computer 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) And as a side note, I recognise that many Jews use the term "the Bible" to refer to the TNK I am not attempting to deny nor delete that fact. I am merely discussing the prominence of that POV. --Home Computer 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer: The problems with your arguments is that you are basing them on your own very limited experiences with your family and what you imagine or think Jews do or say as a group spread out over the world and over time as they are and have been, when it is not so. While Hebrew has been the main language of Judaism (although Aramaic features much more with the study of the Talmud, and in each culture Jews adopt and adapt new languages such as Yiddish and Ladino) - Hebrew alone has most definitely NOT been the language of Jews - a big difference. I do not buy your argument because you seem to have an agenda (not quite clear to me at this point) formulated by you alone, which seems to fly in the face of reality and logic. The reality is that Jews do and have used the non-Hebrew word/s "The Bible" to refer to either the Torah and/or the Tanakh or sometimes to just sections of those books (good word here, right!) Finally, we are not running a "patience and kindness program" here and you should try to understand that perhaps your view of how the words "The Bible" are used, miss the fact that Jews do extensively use these non-Hebrew words within themselves (as when non-Orthodox Jews are talking to each other, or when Jews are trying to talk to the world at large) But note, they do not thereby intend to include the "New Testament" into the words "The Bible" because according to both Judaism and Jews the Bible does not, should not, and must not contain a latter-day Christian "New Testament." Thus Jews have their own self-understood (to them) "kosher" understanding of any language and thus their version when using the words Bible or The Bible they imply that the Bible should be only Jewish and should be rid of its Christian connotations and associations, which is an opposite direction to what you are arguing. And the article should reflect that, simply because the Jews are the original authors of the Bible in the first place...something like doing a reality check. This should be very obvious, and what is the point of waiting for "patience and kindness" exactly? IZAK 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir, Patience and kindness is the wiki thing. It's cutomary to assume good faith as we work together. I'm running no cmpaign for anything but to see truth and reality accurately represented and not suppressed. I understand the point of view that to some (and perhaps many) Jews the term "The Bible" may be used to refer to Tanakh(or Torah). I was wrong concerning that earlier (as previously noted). And just because a man has argued favorable in your eyes to demontrate his opinions of me, should not result in a blanket revision but should STILL require from a your a point by point discussion about each issue regardless of your feelings toward a person. --Home Computer 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer: I acknowledge your words, but POV-pushing and keeping to a NPOV at all times is also a "wiki thing" and in matters of religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam which overlap in some of their core beliefs there is bound to be confusion and incorrect assumptions all around. I agree patience is called for, but it should not be an excuse or a shield for errors of any sort. Sincerely, IZAK 08:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To User:Home Computer: What fight? This is just a discussion on a talk page! I am not sure what your actual point is? The Bible article is a balancing act and it needs to convey as much about the Judaic view with its history and in all it fullnes as well as about the Christian view in all it expressions. Therefore there must be discussion about the term "Old Testament" the way that Christians have traditionally used it. To totally merge the Tanakh concepts with "Old Testament" into one unit, may please some groups in Christianity who stress the Old Testament and hence like the Tanakh to get prominence, but the fact is that as a whole Christianity has relegated and painted the Tanakh into its corner of "Old Testament" in order to justify its writing of a "New Testament" and that is more or less where things stand, and the article should reflect this situation, I think, but please enlighten me if you think I am missing some important points, arguments or information here. Thanks. IZAK 10:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

ok :), thanks fior hearing me out. First, I have Jewish family and they never use the word Bible around me. I've studied in seminary and been to the Holy Land and was still unaware that many Jews use the word Bible. I was wrong and that's ok. :) I can learn. Secondly, I rather like the way the "Hewbrew Bible" section is right now. I like the way that it's correctly identified as having common books of the TNK and the OT. I agree with you that the OT should by no means get prominence over the TNK. PArt of what I like about the section entitled "Hebrew Bible" is that in that section the TNK discussion and the OT discussion can both have thier own place. Jewish History is very important to this whole article and I'm sorry if I came acrost as saying other wise.. Where this whole problem started was when I first came into the article there were 2 problems, no Old Testament section to speak of (best selling book of all time and no mention of the first half).. and the Christian vs Jewish sections were written as if in opposition when in fact when we speak biblically and from a scholarly viewpoint, Christians accept and identify with all of pre Christ Judaism as thier own. Yeshua was a Jew, we recieve salvation only through being grafted in to the vine, etc. The very notion of a Christian vs Jewish sections to describe view points on the definitions and usage of the TNK is nonsensical. Yes there are some differences that need to be noted but overwhelmingly the information overlaps. Peace. :) --Home Computer 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, there is still a fundamental problem, then. You write, "Christians accept and identify with all of pre Christ Judaism as thier own. Yeshua was a Jew, we recieve salvation only through being grafted in to the vine, etc." and I understand and accept this, and I believe that this POV must be included in the Bible article. You are asserting a relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and a relationship between the Old testament and Christians. I accept that this is important to Christians and for this reason there is a need for a section on the Old Testament that makes this clear. However, you have to understand and accept that Jews do not share this view. For Jews, neither the New Testament nor Christianity can possibly be grafted onto the "vine" of the Tanakh. Jews believe that to make this claim is to misread and misconstrue the Tanakh. I know you do not believe this. You have your point of view, Christians have their point of view. But Jews do not share this point of view, and consequently view the Tanakh very differently from the way Christians do. For this reason you are totally wrong to write, "The very notion of a Christian vs Jewish sections to describe view points on the definitions and usage of the TNK is nonsensical." For many Jews, the Tanakh proves that Christianity is wrong; for all Jews, the Tanakh has meanings utterly at odds with the understanding Christians have of the Old Testament. You do not have to agree with this view. You do not even have to like it. But you must accept that it is a significant view that must be included in the Bible article for that article to comply with NPOV. I would like to know what IZAK thinks, whether he agrees or disagrees with me (or you) concerning these points. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See my most recent reply to Home Computer above. Now that I have read some honest arguments I must say that it looks pretty clear to me that User:Slrubenstein is correct and User:Home Computer has a lot of rethinking and homework to do. Seems that Home Computer is conveying a stealth Hebrew Christian argument, and those kind of discussions lead nowhere. His changes to the Bible article should be reverted until such time as he can see the other views as clearly and correctly expressed by Slrubenstein and others. IZAK 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575

I have posted on the RFC again. New stuff. This guy isn't interested in cooperating. --Meshulam 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Categories of Jewish history

Actually, I do not believe I made any moves from Category:Jewish history by country to Category:Jewish history. Category:Jewish history by country was created by me at 18:33, October 12, 2006. Before that time, I had been doing some minor edits, re-alphabetizing articles in some categories (so that History of xxxx and History of yyyy would not both be alphabetized under "H"). [1] [2] [3] [4] The last one I did this to was History of the Jews in Belarus, at which point I came to the conclusion that there were too many categories of Jewish History according to country mixed in with other topics under Category:Jewish history, and decided to make Category:Jewish history by country to take care of this. After I created that category, I moved the relevant subcats of Category:Jewish history to the new category, but I seem to have left the main articles under Category:Jewish history. I will move them now. Perhaps I did act too fast, however. --Eliyak T·C 19:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, Son of the Devil

I think the article is notable. It claims to describe the first illustration of a Jew in Medieval England, and contains some historically important features of dress. Of course it's an anti-Semitic characture, that also is a notable feature of the time. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hey IZAK... the article is found here on the online JE. There's probably not enough for it to ever be more than a stub, so it could probably be comfortably merged into a larger article on Anti-Semitism in England or something [to also include Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, and any number of other instances of antisemitism in English history, if the need is felt to create such an article...]. Kol tuv, Tomer^talk 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts folks. IZAK 05:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman vs. Liberman

You may be interested in reviewing Talk:Avigdor Liberman#Lieberman vs. Liberman. בברכה, El_C 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi El_C: Oh, that again... IZAK 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Judaism in Pakistan

The Religion in Pakistan page follows the standard format for religions in Pakistan, for example Christianity in Pakistan, Islam in Pakistan etc. The page Judaism in Pakistan has been renamed by you to Jews and Judaism in Pakistan. This does not follow standard naming format for religions in Pakistan pages. I will be reverting the name change and if you have any objections please raise them. Siddiqui 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Siddiqui: You seem to forget that the article in question is also connected to a long series of articles in the Jewish categories (see for example, Category:Jews and Judaism by country and Category:Jewish history by country.) You are also making a huge error because Jews are both an ethnic group and a religious group and those are not always the same (see the Jew article and the Judaism article to understand this better) and I will therefore undo your reverts because the article is not merely about "Judaism" in Pakistan, in fact it hardly deals with the religion, it is rather all about the Jews and their history in Pakistan. You should have studied this subject better and consulted editors in the Judaism section before making your changes. Thanks. IZAK 04:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Let us continue this discussion at Talk:Jews and Judaism in Pakistan. I am cross-posting the above to there. IZAK 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish cemeteries

Hi Izak, I created a category for Jewish cemeteries. Can you please decide whether it is better to put it under Judaism or under Jews and Judaism? Best regards, gidonb 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Gidon: Hmmm, what's with this interest in cemeteries? By the way, the fate of Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel; Category:Saintly person tombs by country; and Category:Saintly person tombs in Iraq was never determined and they sit in limbo, seems to me. Could you help do something about is so that there won't be a type of duplication here? I think your category can fit under a number of parent-categories actually, such as Category:Jewish law and rituals (since Judaism places great importance on proper burial and the Shulkhan Arukh devotes laws to it.) It can also go under Category:Jewish communities (which has the sub-category of Category:Historic Jewish communities.) I think that placing it under "Category:Judaism" is stretching it somewhat, as Judaism generally refers to the faith. Hope this helps. Let me know what you think. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cedarhurst

And yes, I do know Cedarhurst. I lived there for 20 years and my parents are still there. Don't assume that I do not know what I am talking about. Helical Rift 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Helicat: The operative word is "lived" -- things have changed in Cedarhurst in the last ten years alone (and are changing right now as many Orthodox families move into the Five Towns every month)! Please keep the talk on this topic confined to the CfD page, otherwise things will get too confusing. Thanks. IZAK 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but considering that my parents still live there, don't you think I visit them?? I only live in NYC so I'm not too far away and I'm only 4 years removed from Cedarhurst. And yes, I see the changes in Cedarhurst and I know that alot of people (including non-Orthodox Jews) are not happy with all the Orthodox families moving in. However, there are still many other non-Jewish families in Cedarhurst. I'm only trying to give credit where credit is due and it was only until after I became angry with Alansohn that he finally put it an Italian-American reference. I originally added one but he deleted it. That's why I'm so upset at this and thats why the category should be deleted. Helical Rift 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Helicat: You are openly admitting yourself that "I see the changes in Cedarhurst and I know that alot of people (including non-Orthodox Jews) are not happy with all the Orthodox families moving in" so I don't get why you are arguing against those facts, which is the only thin that the Orthodox Jewish communities is trying to note, that Cedarhurst is now a known, notable, and recognized place wher Orthodox Jews now live in significant numbers which therefore means that there is now an Orthodox Jewish communuty in Cderahurst worth noting, period. As I said on the main CfD talk page, let me repeat a few points: "...I do not believe that anyone has the right to say "you cannot say so-and-so because it is my town" -- what exactly does "my town" mean here? I cannot fathom it. Wikipedia is about scholarship, it is not a cyber-Neighborhood Watch patrol nor would it be the place for a cyber-Witch-hunt if some witches chose to move next door to you -- please understand the point of my argument. Should the well-known fact that large numbers of Orthodox Jews live in "your town" still not be put into a category because it is "your town" and with that other towns very different to your town should also be deleted if this entire category should be deleted, which I hope it will not? Percentages alone are not the only criteria for what makes a neighborhood or community Jewish or Orthodox..." IZAK 11:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read your post on the deletion page. DON'T YOU DARE BRING UP THE WORDS CONCENTRATION CAMP TO ME AGAIN!!!! How dare you state that I should look those up!!! I cannot believe that you brought this to that level!!!! I'm only trying to give my hometown some credit and you have to bring up that. Shame on you!!!! Helical Rift 10:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Helicat: Please re-read my words that I clarified, I will repeat the main ones here again for your edification: See it below...IZAK 12:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting....I see that you contacted the entire Jewish population on Wikipedia about the vote. Personally, I don't see why it means that much to you when I was willing to compromise. Honestly, you have alot of growing up to do.

• Nope, I contacted a FEW editors who know something about this subject. Do you think this is a "private" discussion between me and you? Feel free to call upon your experts in this field. We do not work in isolation on Wikipedia, we join and are part of "communities" of our own choosing. Nice to be "watched" though... should I start feeling paranoid now? IZAK 11:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope don't have to feel paranoid. But I will fight this issue tooth and nail. You crossed the line bringing up the holocaust and concentration camps. Helical Rift

• Helicat: I have no problem repeating the following for your benefit as an exercise in clear thinking: "During the Holocaust they were Jewish communities as well, believe it or not. Do you honestly think that the Orthodox Jews stopped living as Orthodox Jews just because the Germans and their European allies shoved more than six million of them into concentration camps and Extermination camps? My point is, how do you define a Jewish community or Orthodox Jewish community? Indeed there are those revisionist historians who argue that concentration and extermination camps are not the preserve of the Jews because non-Jews died there in large numbers as well, so does that mean we should now not associate the names of the Auschwitz concentration camp or the Treblinka extermination camp with the Jewish people merely because others died there as well? Try to follow the logic of the point I am making and you will see that if we were to follow your line of reasoning, these horrific places would be removed from Jewish categories because they were also places where other "heterogeneous" people were killed." Which is the part that does not suit you? IZAK 12:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am following your logic and I do understand where you are coming from. What I don't understand is why are you being so stubborn when I already said I am willing to compromise on the renaming of the category? This has gone completely off topic. Alansohn and I resolved the original issue, yet, you found it necessary to bring up history lessons. Ok..if you find that you wont be able to sleep at night unless Cedarhurst is categorized as an Orthodox Jewish community, then you have my blessing to leave it up. However, I am going to add many other categories as well (i.e. Italian, Irish, Indian) to better represent Cedarhurst. As I said, I see your point; you clearly don't see mine and I do not feel that is anything left for you and I to discuss. I have lost a night's sleep on this and would actually like to try to salvage some rest. And the name is Helical, not Helicat. Helical Rift

• Helical: Oh I see, it is helical, sorry about that old chap, just that the "helica" part made me think of Hellcats... Anyhow, you are still missing my point and meaning big time, and you are denigrating the significance of the Orthodox Jewish presence and its definition and character. Tell me, what SPECIAL meaning will there be in listing Irish Americans in Cedarhurst? Feel free to do so, but the establishment, growth and functioning of an Orthodox Jewish community has very special meaning. It is highly structured in many ways, although it may not seem so to outsiders, and shares the same features as all other Orthodox communities, such as the existance of rabbis, synagogues, Jewish day schools, yeshivas, Chabad-Lubavitch, Mikvahs (ritual baths), Kosher restaurants and stores, an Eruv for carrying on the Shabbat (Jewish Sabbath), devotion to Religious Zionism and active support for the State of Israel, living according to the Shulkhan Arukh (Code of Jewish Law) and Halakha (Jewish Law) and following the 613 mitzvot (613 Biblical commandments) as well as the whole gamut of observances and rituals that you can find in Category:Jewish law and rituals. Now, I am SURE that the Italian Americans or African Americans in Cedrahurst do not live like this. Please understand that the adherence of Orthodox Jews to Orthodox Judaism is something very marked, distinct, unique and notable, and once you have a critical mass of them in one area concentrated and doing "their thing" you can't just flippantly come along and say, well let's just cyber-"dilute" their identity by throwing in any ethnic group remotely connected to Cedarhurst, because what is true about other ethnic and religious groups is not the same thing that defines and describes what the Orthodox Jews are about and what they do and the way that they do things which is a special phenomenon and that is why it gets its own articles and categories -- it's just not like anything or anyone else, period. This is not "elitism" this is just fact. And now I too will go to sleeeeep. Thanks for being a good sport. IZAK 13:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're too strident for me, dude. Please take editing more lightly. - crz crztalk 16:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Crz: Kindly drop your paternalistic attitude bud, it's not appreciated. IZAK 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Serious IZAK...enough already. I don't think people care anymore. Helical Rift

• Hey Helical, I am always serious, what gives? Just because you don't care about something the way I care about it does not mean that the world looks at things your way only. IZAK 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I do care about it the same way as you do which is why I'm not backing down from my opinion. I respect yours; I just dont think you respect mine Helical Rift 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Helical: I do respect your opinion! I just think that you are not going about things the right way. (Just using it as an example here:) You seem to feel that because other ethnic and religious communities in Cedarhurst have not been noted or placed into a category (yet), or that an editor removed them or did something not to your liking, that now you will, for lack of a better word, "take revenge" and wipe out not just the connection of Cedarhurst with Category:Orthodox Jewish communities, but you will go even further by supporting a vote to have the entire category removed even it has in it places that are almost 99.99% certfiable Orthodox communities. This just does not seem to be a way for doing (editing) business on Wikipedia. We are not here to play games of tit for tat, or one upmanship, we are here to recognize that various editors deal with subjects in varying ways. For example, a recent editor just combined/merged Pakistani Jews and History of the Jews in Pakistan into Judaism in Pakistan (to fit with Pakistani topics) and I informed him that "Judaism" refers to the religion, but "Jews" refers to an ethnicity as well (as Jews are considered to be part of both an ethnicity and a religion, which he did not seem to be aware of, and he has made an editing and factual mistake unintentionally), so then I created a broader name for that article of Jews and Judaism in Pakistan to cover both bases. So this is always going to be difficult for editors coming at things from opposite world views, but that does not mean that they must automatically cross each other out, like being zapped in an electronic game. This is real life, and it's far more complex and complicated, and it's never gonna be "winner take all" at all on Wikipedia, believe me I know it, which does not mean I have to give in to poorly formulated arguments just to keep the peace and not to seem "too strident" (seems Crz just does not like noisy Jews, he prefers the silent types) so be it, but I am not a "silent type" - never was, never will be. Take care. IZAK 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

Edit war between me and Meshulam, Crz protected the article. I need another frum person to confirm my words (I am sure you will). Please see Talk:Haredim and Zionism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Daniel: As I was not involved in writing the article, and the present disputes seem to be focused on spefic cases, could you please, in a conscise way, summarize what it is that you are trying to say that is now under dispute in the article so that I can know what you want from me in a more exact fashion. Thanks for your efforts. IZAK 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Open Orthodoxy

Hi IZAK! I started an Open Orthodoxy article. Given your discussions on disambiguating Orthodox Jewish and Orthodox Christian topics, was wondering if there was any issue with the name. If there is you might want to comment on the article talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Shirahadasha: I read the article. It cannot stand alone otherwise it would be deleted as a neologism in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, because "Open Orthodoxy" is Weiss's own very recent creation and it does not have any recognition from anyone within the broader world of Orthodoxy, and thus Wikipedia is not the place to publish new ideologies. All the material belongs with the Avi Weiss article and I have redirected and posted it there and made it fit in as it's Weiss's baby, and is not a universal movement in Klal Yisrael. Best wishes. IZAK 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)